Mr. Pig...are you familar with the term "trying too hard?" It comes to mind for me every time I see something like this. What you may fail to realize is that the harder you try, the more you actually hurt your cause, for the "rant factor" drives away more than it attracts.

Oh yeah....bring up some edited radio clip from 8 friggin years ago! Shall I bring up what Bush said 8 years ago!!!

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

What you may fail to realize is that the harder you try, the more you actually hurt your cause, for the "rant factor" drives away more than it attracts.

I don't agree here. Eventually people are going to realize that the proponderance of evidence is too big to ignore, and see this guy for what he really is. The majority of these things that I post are his own words. I like to post complete unedited videos whenever I can find them, but there is enough in that clip that isn't edited to make the point.

The problem lies in that you are gorging at the trough of right extremity. Your snout is so deep in the goo you can't see that the items you present here for peoples' "edification" are, in most cases, biased enough to be dismissed by all but the most avowed righties. I'm sorry to disparage, but when I look at the stuff, and its sources, I just chuckle.

If you think you are performing a service that benefits "the people", I daresay all you are actually doing is pleasing strident right-wing cheerleaders, while many others just shake their heads or simply look away. Not a very effective ministry there, El Pastor!

By the way...being a Chicagoan, I can tell you EXACTLY who Obama was cheering on back when this was filmed. 'Twas an inner-city constituency who deffo believe it's always good to "stick it to the man". Condemning Obama for being a politician, and giving his flock what they want, and what they want to hear, is silly...my good man, that's not only politics, it's the job he was elected to DO. He was a senator of an inner-city district, a liberal stronghold...and his sworn duty was to represent their interests in Washington. Guess what that agenda would be? Yes! Exactly. What else COULD it be. Why should anyone be surprised by a senator doing his job?

It's the lack of that kind of highly relevant context that makes this knee-jerk nonsense look like pure programming form your handlers. Shame on them!

Further, here's the REAL truth: you may not like it, but he's been promoted. Different job. Different set of goals. Different people voted. The agenda is now, therefore...Different.

On the other hand, if you so dislike the man, that you can't IMAGINE him being able to adapt and change to the needs of his current nationwide constituency...then you offer not counterpoint, but merely contempt.

Except his current socialist agenda (and spoke about redistribution of wealth at the end that vid in his pre campaign) speaks volumes. His playbook is still essentially the same, just moved upto the majorr leagues is all. He looked Joe the plumber in his face and told him, I don't want to punish you for being succesful but spreading the wealth around is good for all of us.... Out of his own mouth in 2008. How's that for source material?

There's no denying his overall agenda is left. One would have to be a fool to even attempt denying that. But his comments and agenda, as expressed to his poor constituency of years back, are only slightly relevant to his current position, if at all.

The point is, this is being presented WAY out of context, and with the usual extreme rhetoric. I knew it the moment I saw the title: "BOMBSHELL...etc" Please. A bombshell it is not, lol.

However, it IS being used punitively, and unfairly. This was a man speaking to his inner-city flock and their aspirations. That's all it is...nothing more. No great ideology, no bully pulpit to the nation, just a man and his poor, black district. What do you expect him to do, praise Whitey? Convince them to invest in ConAgra and T-Bills? I don't recall...do brokers take food stamps? Come on, guys!

If you think that using someone's own words to show people who they are is "gorging at the trough of right extremity", I will not bother trying to debate a point with you further. From any of your posts in this forum where you have argued an ideological point, I believe you and I actually have similar stances on many issues, but it seems you are among the people who really can't bring themselves to think that we might have someone who was elected into the office of the President that has intent to radically change this country.

As for taking it in context, I will submit to you that his history is consistant in this manner. He has always demonstrated extreme liberal ideals, except when talking to the broad based public. He also campaigned last fall using very centrist sounding lingo, and promising a new era of transparency and bi-partisanship, but as soon as he got into office, he started simply strong-arming Republicans into support for his agenda, not including them in any real substantive discussion, going so far as to actually shut them out of meetings with the Democrats in Congress, going back on his promise of posting bills online for a minimum of 72 hours prior to debate, and flat-out lying to the public about what he's doing. Since January, when he went out on his tour around the country trying to sell the ARRA, I've downloaded the bills as soon as they were available, and his words do not match up with the text in the bills. In one of the recent threads I pointed out a handful of things he stated that are 180 degrees out from what is in the health care bill he's trying to push through. I have also pointed out where his own words during the campaign season contradict what he says now (regarding wanting to move to a single payer system). Also let's not forget the fact that he campaigned on, and repeated constantly during his first few months, about a new era of responsibility, yet more than half of the people he nominated for cabinet positions were tax cheats who suddenly remembered their errors about the same time they were being considered for office. Also, for a man who, less than three months prior to trippling our budget deficit, claimed that we couldn't keep running such astronomical deficits as $400 billion, he doesn't seem to have any interest in following through with that one, either. How about earmarks? "I will not sign any bills that contain earmarks", but he has yet to sign one that doesn't. He even signed in the omnibus spending bill, which contained close to 9,000 earmarks, saying "moving forward, I won't be signing any more bills that contain earmarks".

Also, when you consider his roots, going back prior to his Illinois Senate seat, and see what he was involved in, and who he associated with (and still does in very tangeable ways), as well as listen to his own words, and catch him in lie after lie, I find it very hard to believe that anyone of reasonable intelligence could look at it completely objectively and not come to the conclusion.

Somewhere in either this forum, or the OT forum, there is a thread from election night, where I was actually the first to tell people that the campaign debating and bickering needed to end, and that we needed to give Obama the benefit of the doubt to see what he would do now that he had won. However, starting before he took the oath, it became pretty clear that he was coming in guns blazing, with a big chip on his shoulder. Once he got into office, he immediately started trying to slam through the ARRA, and shut down any Republican ideas. He even made the statement during one of the debates, when a Republican Senator called him on his lack of bi-partisan discussion, "look, we won, we're going to do it our way", or something to that effect, basically telling them that they weren't going to have a say in it.

You imply hatred for the man personally, but I have said it repeatedly: I want his agenda stopped, and the only way it's going to happen is if people see his intent, and see him for who he really is.

One last thought, as this turned into more of a rant than I had intended: with regards to being a good politician and simply speaking to his audience, I say when it comes to jumping in the boat with people and their views, bullsh!t, especially when it has racism involved. Instead of going along with the "stick it to the man" attitude, he could have used far better points to show his desire to work for them than to fuel the fire. The problem with your entire premise is that a good politician isn't usually a good leader, they just act the part. A good leader will stand honestly to his or her principles, and work to convince people they are right. They will not try to appear to be something they are not.

The gorging is evident, I'm afraid. I'm just pointing it out from a moderate's point of view, and in doing so, I want you to see that this approach isn't quite effective. It turns off the people you'd like to turn on to your slant.

You want your message embraced, and its adherents to grow? Make it embraceable by more than the ones who are already on your team. It's Marketing 101. If this constant machine-gun fire of rightist "evidence" is turning away even moderates, well...you then obviously cannot grow your numbers, for you KNOW you can't draw liberals to your team. You hurt the very cause you profess to support when you chase away the very people you need to obtain.

They are in charge now, these Democrats. No sh!t they are exercising their agenda! If you expected anything less, then I don't know what else to say. Still, it is not an evil plot to overthrow our system. It's their turn, man. They earned it. Hell, the cons HANDED it to them. I think the cons knew they were so beaten, that they put McCain and Palin up there as sacrificial lambs, knowing full well they were unelectable. Save the bullets for a fair fight later, leave the better candidates fresh for when Obama gets shown the door in 2012. Few defeated candidates have ever gone on to win later. This was McCain taking one for the team.

I maintain, regarding Obama's comments while he was Senator: No matter how you need to spin it...it's not racism to represent your people's needs. It's not unusual for Democratic senators of urban regions to bang the liberal drum. All of them. Always have. White, black, and decades before Obama rose to power in Illinois. That's not racism. That is constituentism, and it's a senator's duty. Being yanked off about it is a waste of time, and can only erode into a bias-fest.

Well... I'm on pins and needles now. How will the save old owl respond? My gut says, it'll center around a two-pronged theme: 1)pig is a right wing lackey engaged in the propaganda of his handlers. 2). Smoke and mirrors---pointing out how what Obama is doing is par for the course..etc.

Then bk3k will chime in a out something bush did (likely the patriot act)

They are in charge now, these Democrats. No sh!t they are exercising their agenda! If you expected anything less, then I don't know what else to say.

I didn't expect anything else, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama was saying at every chance he got that it was a new era of bi-partisanship, and that he was different than all other politicians because he was a centrist--a moderate, who would govern by taking all views and all ideas and working together. He is horribly far from that, and it deserves to be exposed.

As for the rest of your post, sadly is has become obvious that you have serious blinders on. You have allowed yourself to ignore the substance of posts and see only an agenda. You have a forgone conclusion about my posts prior to reading them, so in your mind my words will fit somehow into your expectations, and you will miss the message.

As for marketing, this is a debate forum. Different animal. If I were running for office, I might take a different tactic. However, since that is not the case, clearly articulated arguments are all that is needed here.

If anyone has blinders on, it sure ain't a moderate like me. I don't think I can let you reduce this to "I know you are, but what am I?", as I was the one inferring you are blindered. Difference is, I'm not windbagging about every sordid drama, no matter how insignificant, that the moderate establishment sends my way. So I won't draw much fire. I'm not leaving myself open to counterpoint like you are. You must deal with the counterpoint your actions produce!

Bear in mind, you say it's a debate forum, implying that's what matters, not the "Marketing" of your points...yet a couple of sentences earlier you say about Obama, "He is horribly far from that, and it deserves to be exposed." Hmm. I would offer that you are not being honest about your motives or intentions, for if you say "it deserves to be exposed", then you ARE trying to sway people...and my Marketing anology thus holds true. I think we call this a "gotcha" moment.

Further, in a debate forum one must be careful to not hobble the debate by stating one is "now finished" with one of the debators. You want to debate? Then debate, and don't write people off. Engage in the lively mindsport, and deal with what your threads bring...else you'll be out of debating opponents very quickly!

If anyone has blinders on, it sure ain't a moderate like me. I don't think I can let you reduce this to "I know you are, but what am I

I would hope not. There are already a couple of guys here who do that on a regular basis.

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

Bear in mind, you say it's a debate forum, implying that's what matters, not the "Marketing" of your points...yet a couple of sentences earlier you say about Obama, "He is horribly far from that, and it deserves to be exposed." Hmm. I would offer that you are not being honest about your motives or intentions, for if you say "it deserves to be exposed", then you ARE trying to sway people...and my Marketing anology thus holds true. I think we call this a "gotcha" moment.

Not really. Debating is trying to sway with points. Marketing is trying to sway by adapting to your audience. They are not the same thing. As for my posting this for the reasons of exposing him: yeah, that was done to make a point, but it still doesn't mean that I have blinders on. It means that I heard yet another thing which fits into the pattern, and I wanted people here to see it. Hell, I could post up a hundred speeches that he's given where he talks about putting people back to work, and making America great again, and being responsible, but that's what he's doing every day. It's not new, and it wouldn't make any kind of point. What things like this video do is to show the side the media doesn't report. Every day you can turn on the radio or TV and see/hear something about how he's trying to turn the economy around, or trying to make health care affordable, or trying to create green jobs, but they don't report anything that shows him for what he has said and done.

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

Further, in a debate forum one must be careful to not hobble the debate by stating one is "now finished" with one of the debators. You want to debate? Then debate, and don't write people off. Engage in the lively mindsport, and deal with what your threads bring...else you'll be out of debating opponents very quickly!

I love to debate subjects. This is why I started the new health care discussion thread. Notice it was not a post about Obama's sh!tty plan, or anything of the sort.

The problem with this and the other threads today that you've been replying to me in, is that you have been making it about my intentions. Once it starts getting about me, I'll stick it out for a while and point out where I see a lack of open-mindedness, but I'm not going to keep it going.

By the way, since you have been absent from this forum for a while prior to recent weeks, you should know that the screen name and sig pic are reasonably new, done as a joke since I'm painted as the name suggests many times by people here with no real ability to articulate a point of view substantively. Prior sigs have been less sarcastic, and even purely informative at some points, including links to stats relevant to current events. There has just been enough liberal rhetoric thrown about regarding the heartlessness of the greedy old white guys in the GOP that I decided to have fun with it.

My analogy of marketing is not meant to be taken literally...doing so means you either don't get it, or don't want to get it. To expound on the analogy a bit further...it's about packaging your talking points in a fashion that better suits the medium, as well as the message. Popping off on so many ultimately trivial things just dilutes your effectiveness.

Even in a debate, you have to present points that are persuasive, and not just combative...lest it devolve into pure contradiction and disparagement. If you spent the time to truly vet some of this folderol you've been presenting, and then just choose the really worthy ones to take into battle, you'll be working form a much more effective position.

If you feel this has gone to being about you, and not your threads, then I'd just ask you to consider why you feel that way. It's certainly not my intention, yet it's your impression...could you be inadvertently showing a less professionally detached, more personally vested perspective?

I do enjoy your sig, and your SN. Someday you'll have to share the others you've had

No, I get your point with the marketing, and while I understand where you're coming from when you speak of it diluting the message, I don't actually post that many things like this, compared with my posts in general. Maybe it appears that way because this forum has been relatively quiet as of late, but it's not the case.

As for why I feel you are making it about me? Don't get me wrong, when I say that, I'm not taking it personally, I'm pointing out that it takes the focus off the point, and ends up simply cluttering up the thread. Your first and second posts in this thread were entirely about me trying to hard, or how I think, or how I absorb my information. Take a look at it. There is nothing about the actual substance of the video until your third post. That's what I'm talking about. Believe me, if I were a sensative person and took this forum personally, I'd probably have closed my account a long time ago. Usually, when the debate drops to the low level of personal attacks, it's done out of futility and lack of substance by people who have nothing to offer, and I simply have fun with it. With you, I see that you are trying to make a point without making it an attack, but the end result is that the thread still gets cluttered up. Make more sense now?

I can't help but call out the apparent bias in your approach. I'm here looking for centrism. If that amounts to thread clutter, well jeez...is it not clutter when everyone agrees with you instead?

I mean, this thread is like an arsonist yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The title you chose, combined with the inflammatory title of the vid...all this is presented with such vitriol, and you have the nerve to act offended when someone calls it out for what it is? Hahaha, my good man, you really just don't get what I am saying. This is silliness. You may have lucid, well thought out positions to present. Then present them. Resorting to drek like this vid shows either a hint of obsessiveness, or desperation, or over-willingness to snap at every table scrap you find.

Quality. Not quantity. Example: Avoid sensationalist terminology like "OBAMA BOMBSHELL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH". All you gonna catch with that vinegar...is some angry flies! And if you just can't stop yourself, zip up that flamy suit

I read this article after studying the audio in the vid closely, and paying very tight attention to how the subtitles were putting words in the man's mouth that he not only did not say, but did not even actually allude to! I yearned for more, for I could tell a real hatchet job was occurring here.

As one can see in reading this article, the discussion going on had little to do with a plan for redistribution or reparations, but was merely a discussion about how such aspects would or should be treated in today's governmental structure. It was an academic discussion of hypothetical nature, a dissertation on how the different branches of government would play different roles depending on interpretation. Dry, legal, Law Professor type stuff. Rather boring, really.

However, if one chooses to view the "video" presented in this thread on YouTube, one learns that the creator and poster of this "video" is a virulent Anti-Obama hatemonger. Yes, I'll say that, and I doubt anyone who views the man's work would be able to argue against me.

So, again...we have actual spoken words taken WAY out of context, and inaccurate fabricated words being forced into your frame of vision via "subtitles" created by a super-biased whack job. This one is so non-credible as to be completely laughable.

G.C.Pig: This is what I am railing on you about. You're leaping at the chance to disparage, and leaving counterpoint and equal time swirling in the wind behind you. You chose a real loser for this thread. Slow down, take it easy, be more careful...and stop making my job of pundit and centrist prognosticator so damned easy!

Damn, that's a long interview. I wish I had a way to download it. I'm on my way out, and I'd listen to it in the car if I had the file. I was looking for the whole interview when I found that clip, but I didn't see it. Maybe I should have scanned through some more pages. This video was, perhaps, a poor choice, but I did not pick it for the title, nor did I find it that way. I only looked for it by the date of the interview, nothing more.

Maybe that clip edits out some of the questions, but he has made these type of statements in other interviews, over a period of many years, including as a legislator. While this may have been a theoretical discussion, there is a paragraph of relevance to the idea of his motives in that article:

Quote:

Maybe Obama is regretful about the way Rodriguez came out. Though he doesn't say so directly, that's a plausible reading, given his use of "slaps down" and his statement later that he's "not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts." But as Orin Kerr points out on the Volokh Conspiracy, Obama is speaking more in descriptive terms than he is advocating a position, so it's hard to tell. If anything, he comes off, per usual, as the opposite of a fire breather—given the opportunity to sound off about the courts and economic justice, he instead seems muted.

Basically, Bazelon is saying that because of the way Obama is speaking in the interview, his actual position is clouded. If you've seen enough interviews with him, you'll know that he tends to do this. He speaks in vagaries whenever speaking his mind would be less than advantageous. He's an excellent speaker, and yes, an excellent politician, in the sense that he can effectively sell himself as anything he wants to. However, that doesn't mean trying to show people what his real intentions are is a bad thing.

Bottom line, when I get the chance, I'll try to listen to the whole interview. If it changes my mind, I'll let you know.

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.